The latest on Conference Realignment and Cal - Saturday the 19th

202,882 Views | 1043 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by annarborbear
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to airspace • 8:07p, 8/22/23
airspace said:
From the hinter lands of ohio.

I can tell you. Having followed Big 10 expansion since before Penn State, the Big 10 is always reviewing potential expansion and expansion candidates. As the Chancellor of Illinois stated (heard Jim Delaney say many times), they are always getting inquiries on expansion.

From what the Big 10 office has said, they were not planning on expanding at this time with Oregon and Washington. I believe the plan was for expanding down the road (several years). But the situation forced their plans and it was moved up.

I still believe they (Presidents) want to take in Stanford and Cal but the money is not there (yet). And they are having issues with their media partners.

Speculation, I believe they (Commissioner with his background & ties) are working behind the scenes to see what they can do with their media partners. Streaming, Thursday night games, Friday night games, Late night Saturday, 10 game conference schedule vs 9 games - many options.

The Big 10 wants to expand into the SE (ACC schools) and I believe this has caused them to put Stanford and Cal on the back burner. The ACC is a dead man walking conference. 7 maybe 8 members want out given their Grant of Rights. FSU (and others) is looking at being $500 million behind their counterparts in the SEC and Big 10 over the next 10 years. Thus why the no votes on Stanford and Cal, with those 2 and SMU, FSU, Clemson and a few others would be locked in the ACC for the next 13 years.

At the end of the day, I still believe Stanford and Cal will be in the Big 10. Just might be a long and bumpy road.

Good luck.

My thinking is that we have to get accepted to the ACC first, to hold our finances in order and be in a position for the Big Ten whenever they decide to take up expansion again (probably when the ACC collapses).
Reply Quote
10
91Cal
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to baytobreakers • 8:07p, 8/22/23
baytobreakers said:
Big Dog said:
Econ141 said:
On a positive note, Christ and Knowlton have been super quiet and secretive so they must be working on something big!
A more positive note would be for those two to get out of the way and let Stanford lead. MTL made it clear that G5 was not an option.
When did MTL say this?

I will not consider these doors closed until the ACC and Big Ten put out statements suggesting they are done expanding for 2024. The Big 12 actually did that.

On the other hand, these statements from the Illinois President (Chair of B10 Council or Presidents / Chancellors) is about the best thing we could have heard:



"This work is never done... appointed a joint working group of 5 or 6 of my colleagues who are doing the analytics / deep dive" "this was in process before we added Oregon and Washington" (who we know had been thoroughly vetted) "but unfortunately Colorado put everything in hyperdrive" but "we will make decisions in our own time and in our own way" --- "I can guarantee you won't be hearing anything about conference expansion in the next two or three days" (two to three days?!?!?! -- he could of literally said anything else and it would've been longer)

"The best conference in the country at this junction --- a position we plan to hold onto because we do keep academics first"

"we are known first and foremost for academics --- that academic component gives us a different kind of look compared to the rest of the conferences --- our commitment to student welfare... and then of course, these things don't pay for themselves, the revenue part of it has to be a consideration"

"But at this point we are just focused on integrating those 4 institutions and doing the thoughtful analysis to see what the landscape is and to continue to be prepared if there is a strategic opportunity to expand that aligns with our value propositions --- and, if not, 18 is a good number"

Full interview:
4:20; 8:25; 12:15 of note
WTAF? This would seem to be out of right field...there's been nothing coming from big18 country about even entertaining more expansion after UOW and now this super ambiguous interview with allusions we have heard from NO ONE since the process began just over a year ago.

Just when I was really warming up to the ACC possibility and visiting Cameron, Boston, ATL and Miami for away games this guy drops hints that we may be back to LA, Seattle and Autzen???
Reply Quote
1
JimSox
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGreg • 8:18p, 8/22/23
BearGreg said:
No reason to change what I said earlier.


All right. I asked to hear more from you, and now I did. Thanks BG. Here's hoping your info is right.
Reply Quote
1
baytobreakers
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:19p, 8/22/23
All we have heard from the B1G is:
Aug 2 (W): B1G presidential committee exploring additions of UW/UO if expanding to 18, Stanford/Cal if it were to expand to 20
Aug 3 (R): "focus narrowed to UO / UW" although there was "presidential interest" in Stanford and Cal, Fox / media partners balked. Presidents authorize Pettiti to explore expansion.
Aug 4 (F): After a bit of stop & go, UO / UW added for dramatically reduced shares. Both programs had been extensively vetted prior to August. If you recall, there had even been reports of UO / UW meeting with the B1G in late summer / early fall 2022.

Since then, there hasn't been much in terms of official statements from the conference -- unlike the Big 12.

Aug 15 --- the date for the ACC to fall apart in 2024 -- also passed, and still no statement. Have reporters not asked??

Just find it interesting. I agree Cal / Stanford could eventually end up in the B10 but not if they "die on the vine" in the meantime... A "strategic opportunity" may be fleeting and passing by as we speak.
Reply Quote
3
OskiDeLaHoya
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to baytobreakers • 9:41p, 8/22/23
baytobreakers said:
All we have heard from the B1G is:
Aug 2 (W): B1G presidential committee exploring additions of UW/UO if expanding to 18, Stanford/Cal if it were to expand to 20
Aug 3 (R): "focus narrowed to UO / UW" although there was "presidential interest" in Stanford and Cal, Fox / media partners balked. Presidents authorize Pettiti to explore expansion.
Aug 4 (F): After a bit of stop & go, UO / UW added for dramatically reduced shares. Both programs had been extensively vetted prior to August. If you recall, there had even been reports of UO / UW meeting with the B1G in late summer / early fall 2022.

Since then, there hasn't been much in terms of official statements from the conference -- unlike the Big 12.

Aug 15 --- the date for the ACC to fall apart in 2024 -- also passed, and still no statement. Have reporters not asked??

Just find it interesting. I agree Cal / Stanford could eventually end up in the B10 but not if they "die on the vine" in the meantime... A "strategic opportunity" may be fleeting and passing by as we speak.
I feel the same way. I really don't understand the B1G's thinking if it's their ultimate goal to add us some time in the future. It doesn't make sense for them to kneecap us the way they did and have our conference collapse around us, leave us roaming the wilderness for a few years and then expect us to be available in a salvageable state when they're ready to add us. I'm starting to think that they're truly not interested, not now and maybe not in the future.

While the B1G probably makes the most sense from Cal's perspective in this new world of realignment, I've accepted the fact that it's not happening ... certainly not anytime soon. If I'm proven wrong somehow, I will be happy for Cal. But I hope we find a home in the ACC as I'm ready to move on. ACC or bust.
Reply Quote
8
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to OskiDeLaHoya • 9:59p, 8/22/23
OskiDeLaHoya said:
baytobreakers said:
All we have heard from the B1G is:
Aug 2 (W): B1G presidential committee exploring additions of UW/UO if expanding to 18, Stanford/Cal if it were to expand to 20
Aug 3 (R): "focus narrowed to UO / UW" although there was "presidential interest" in Stanford and Cal, Fox / media partners balked. Presidents authorize Pettiti to explore expansion.
Aug 4 (F): After a bit of stop & go, UO / UW added for dramatically reduced shares. Both programs had been extensively vetted prior to August. If you recall, there had even been reports of UO / UW meeting with the B1G in late summer / early fall 2022.

Since then, there hasn't been much in terms of official statements from the conference -- unlike the Big 12.

Aug 15 --- the date for the ACC to fall apart in 2024 -- also passed, and still no statement. Have reporters not asked??

Just find it interesting. I agree Cal / Stanford could eventually end up in the B10 but not if they "die on the vine" in the meantime... A "strategic opportunity" may be fleeting and passing by as we speak.
I feel the same way. I really don't understand the B1G's thinking if it's their ultimate goal to add us some time in the future. It doesn't make sense for them to kneecap us the way they did and have our conference collapse around us, leave us roaming the wilderness for a few years and then expect us to be available in a salvageable state when they're ready to add us. I'm starting to think that they're truly not interested, not now and maybe not in the future.

While the B1G probably makes the most sense from Cal's perspective in this new world of realignment, I've accepted the fact that it's not happening ... certainly not anytime soon. If I'm proven wrong somehow, I will be happy for Cal. But I hope we find a home in the ACC as I'm ready to move on. ACC or bust.

If our Ohio visitor's speculation is correct, it may be that the B1G wants to add more, but the media partners are being stubborn. That would fit with the reported speculation that Fox is really making the decisions on their expansion. It remains to be seen if they can potentially work around that.

If I'm extrapolating from some of BearGreg's comments here, it seems like the B1G did have some kind of offer or at least discussed some kind of price point for Stan/Cal, but it's far lower than what they could potentially get from the ACC. That's why the focus on making a deal there.
Reply Quote
2
baytobreakers
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 10:06p, 8/22/23
sycasey said:
OskiDeLaHoya said:
baytobreakers said:
All we have heard from the B1G is:
Aug 2 (W): B1G presidential committee exploring additions of UW/UO if expanding to 18, Stanford/Cal if it were to expand to 20
Aug 3 (R): "focus narrowed to UO / UW" although there was "presidential interest" in Stanford and Cal, Fox / media partners balked. Presidents authorize Pettiti to explore expansion.
Aug 4 (F): After a bit of stop & go, UO / UW added for dramatically reduced shares. Both programs had been extensively vetted prior to August. If you recall, there had even been reports of UO / UW meeting with the B1G in late summer / early fall 2022.

Since then, there hasn't been much in terms of official statements from the conference -- unlike the Big 12.

Aug 15 --- the date for the ACC to fall apart in 2024 -- also passed, and still no statement. Have reporters not asked??

Just find it interesting. I agree Cal / Stanford could eventually end up in the B10 but not if they "die on the vine" in the meantime... A "strategic opportunity" may be fleeting and passing by as we speak.
I feel the same way. I really don't understand the B1G's thinking if it's their ultimate goal to add us some time in the future. It doesn't make sense for them to kneecap us the way they did and have our conference collapse around us, leave us roaming the wilderness for a few years and then expect us to be available in a salvageable state when they're ready to add us. I'm starting to think that they're truly not interested, not now and maybe not in the future.

While the B1G probably makes the most sense from Cal's perspective in this new world of realignment, I've accepted the fact that it's not happening ... certainly not anytime soon. If I'm proven wrong somehow, I will be happy for Cal. But I hope we find a home in the ACC as I'm ready to move on. ACC or bust.

If our Ohio visitor's speculation is correct, it may be that the B1G wants to add more, but the media partners are being stubborn. That would fit with the reported speculation that Fox is really making the decisions on their expansion. It remains to be seen if they can potentially work around that.

If I'm extrapolating from some of BearGreg's comments here, it seems like the B1G did have some kind of offer or at least discussed some kind of price point for Stan/Cal, but it's far lower than what they could potentially get from the ACC. That's why the focus on making a deal there.
As much as the ACC deal may be better in the short term ---- and, believe me, I'm hyped for and would love an invite to the ACC at the moment over the alternative --- that ACC life raft has a hole/leak in it. It's going to implode as soon as FSU/Clemson get to the point where the cost of penalties in leaving is outweighed by the benefit of the SEC/B1G. Therefore, if there is viable, albeit, paltry offer on the table from the B1G that beats out a G6/Pac-12 rebuild (our BATNA), we should take it.
Reply Quote
3
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to baytobreakers • 10:23p, 8/22/23
baytobreakers said:
sycasey said:
OskiDeLaHoya said:
baytobreakers said:
All we have heard from the B1G is:
Aug 2 (W): B1G presidential committee exploring additions of UW/UO if expanding to 18, Stanford/Cal if it were to expand to 20
Aug 3 (R): "focus narrowed to UO / UW" although there was "presidential interest" in Stanford and Cal, Fox / media partners balked. Presidents authorize Pettiti to explore expansion.
Aug 4 (F): After a bit of stop & go, UO / UW added for dramatically reduced shares. Both programs had been extensively vetted prior to August. If you recall, there had even been reports of UO / UW meeting with the B1G in late summer / early fall 2022.

Since then, there hasn't been much in terms of official statements from the conference -- unlike the Big 12.

Aug 15 --- the date for the ACC to fall apart in 2024 -- also passed, and still no statement. Have reporters not asked??

Just find it interesting. I agree Cal / Stanford could eventually end up in the B10 but not if they "die on the vine" in the meantime... A "strategic opportunity" may be fleeting and passing by as we speak.
I feel the same way. I really don't understand the B1G's thinking if it's their ultimate goal to add us some time in the future. It doesn't make sense for them to kneecap us the way they did and have our conference collapse around us, leave us roaming the wilderness for a few years and then expect us to be available in a salvageable state when they're ready to add us. I'm starting to think that they're truly not interested, not now and maybe not in the future.

While the B1G probably makes the most sense from Cal's perspective in this new world of realignment, I've accepted the fact that it's not happening ... certainly not anytime soon. If I'm proven wrong somehow, I will be happy for Cal. But I hope we find a home in the ACC as I'm ready to move on. ACC or bust.

If our Ohio visitor's speculation is correct, it may be that the B1G wants to add more, but the media partners are being stubborn. That would fit with the reported speculation that Fox is really making the decisions on their expansion. It remains to be seen if they can potentially work around that.

If I'm extrapolating from some of BearGreg's comments here, it seems like the B1G did have some kind of offer or at least discussed some kind of price point for Stan/Cal, but it's far lower than what they could potentially get from the ACC. That's why the focus on making a deal there.
As much as the ACC deal may be better in the short term ---- and, believe me, I'm hyped for and would love an invite to the ACC at the moment over the alternative --- that ACC life raft has a hole/leak in it. It's going to implode as soon as FSU/Clemson get to the point where the cost of penalties in leaving is outweighed by the benefit of the SEC/B1G. Therefore, if there is viable, albeit, paltry offer on the table from the B1G that beats out a G6/Pac-12 rebuild (our BATNA), we should take it.

Or, if and when the ACC breaks up we will be free agents again and potentially able to get a different/better offer from the B1G. We don't really know what will happen.
Reply Quote
1
Shocky1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:33p, 8/22/23
big 10 offer never happened
Reply Quote
bledblue
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGreg • 11:07p, 8/22/23
BearGreg said:
sycasey said:
I'm also curious if the Big Ten have had any talks/interest in picking up Cal or Stanford? Or are they completely out of the picture at this point?
The B10 is no longer involved. Almost certainly the gap in $$'s is too great.

At this point, why not just take the low offer from the BIG?
Reply Quote
JimSox
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bledblue • 11:09p, 8/22/23
bledblue said:
BearGreg said:
sycasey said:
I'm also curious if the Big Ten have had any talks/interest in picking up Cal or Stanford? Or are they completely out of the picture at this point?
The B10 is no longer involved. Almost certainly the gap in $$'s is too great.

At this point, why not just take the low offer from the BIG?
Because there isn't one?
Reply Quote
10
sosheezy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JimSox • 11:16p, 8/22/23
JimSox said:
bledblue said:
BearGreg said:
sycasey said:
I'm also curious if the Big Ten have had any talks/interest in picking up Cal or Stanford? Or are they completely out of the picture at this point?
The B10 is no longer involved. Almost certainly the gap in $$'s is too great.

At this point, why not just take the low offer from the BIG?
Because there isn't one?

Exactly and also if the numbers discussed are Fox paying only $10-15M/year, when your conference peers are getting $62.5/yr and $30-35M (UW/OR), you are set up to fail hard and never be competitive. Taking 16-25% at best revenue relative to peers? Not when the ACC discussions are real and let's say for 50-70% of what the rest of the league gets.
Reply Quote
2
Econ141
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JimSox • 11:18p, 8/22/23
JimSox said:
bledblue said:
BearGreg said:
sycasey said:
I'm also curious if the Big Ten have had any talks/interest in picking up Cal or Stanford? Or are they completely out of the picture at this point?
The B10 is no longer involved. Almost certainly the gap in $$'s is too great.

At this point, why not just take the low offer from the BIG?
Because there isn't one?


Is this mind boggling to anyone else? We are literally willing to take no distribution for a few years and they still won't touch us with a ten foot pole? I mean there must be some politics involved here or they are dead sure that our leadership would never field a team worth watching. Hard to really stomach this but if they don't want us now, what makes anyone think they ever will? They are essentially just sinking us because they can which also seems monopolistic.

If we go G5 it is lights out .... We will never prove to be a winner. If we go to ACC, we will be .500 or slightly better at best - not sure if that changes the math on their end. So what's the path there? I don't see one.
Reply Quote
3
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Shocky1 • 11:31p, 8/22/23
Shocky1 said:
big 10 offer never happened
If you say so. I'm just speculating based on BearGreg's comment here.
Quote:
The B10 is no longer involved. Almost certainly the gap in $$'s is too great.
This indicates that, at least at some point, a dollar value was discussed with the Big Ten. Perhaps Greg is wrong?
Reply Quote
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Econ141 • 11:32p, 8/22/23
Econ141 said:
JimSox said:
bledblue said:
BearGreg said:
sycasey said:
I'm also curious if the Big Ten have had any talks/interest in picking up Cal or Stanford? Or are they completely out of the picture at this point?
The B10 is no longer involved. Almost certainly the gap in $$'s is too great.

At this point, why not just take the low offer from the BIG?
Because there isn't one?


Is this mind boggling to anyone else? We are literally willing to take no distribution for a few years
That has not been confirmed.
Reply Quote
sosheezy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 11:38p, 8/22/23
sycasey said:
Shocky1 said:
big 10 offer never happened
If you say so. I'm just speculating based on BearGreg's comment here.
Quote:
The B10 is no longer involved. Almost certainly the gap in $$'s is too great.
This indicates that, at least at some point, a dollar value was discussed with the Big Ten. Perhaps Greg is wrong?


There's a difference between Fox communicating a potential value assigned for Cal/Stanford vs the Big Ten offering that value and most importantly, membership.
Reply Quote
4
GMP
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 11:44p, 8/22/23
sycasey said:
Shocky1 said:
big 10 offer never happened
If you say so. I'm just speculating based on BearGreg's comment here.
Quote:
The B10 is no longer involved. Almost certainly the gap in $$'s is too great.
This indicates that, at least at some point, a dollar value was discussed with the Big Ten. Perhaps Greg is wrong?


"Involved" and "made an offer" are not the same thing.
Reply Quote
3
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sosheezy • 4:30a, 8/23/23
sosheezy said:
sycasey said:
Shocky1 said:
big 10 offer never happened
If you say so. I'm just speculating based on BearGreg's comment here.
Quote:
The B10 is no longer involved. Almost certainly the gap in $$'s is too great.
This indicates that, at least at some point, a dollar value was discussed with the Big Ten. Perhaps Greg is wrong?


There's a difference between Fox communicating a potential value assigned for Cal/Stanford vs the Big Ten offering that value and most importantly, membership.

Yes, I said as much earlier.
Reply Quote
phyrux
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to baytobreakers • 4:35a, 8/23/23
baytobreakers said:
sycasey said:
OskiDeLaHoya said:
baytobreakers said:
All we have heard from the B1G is:
Aug 2 (W): B1G presidential committee exploring additions of UW/UO if expanding to 18, Stanford/Cal if it were to expand to 20
Aug 3 (R): "focus narrowed to UO / UW" although there was "presidential interest" in Stanford and Cal, Fox / media partners balked. Presidents authorize Pettiti to explore expansion.
Aug 4 (F): After a bit of stop & go, UO / UW added for dramatically reduced shares. Both programs had been extensively vetted prior to August. If you recall, there had even been reports of UO / UW meeting with the B1G in late summer / early fall 2022.

Since then, there hasn't been much in terms of official statements from the conference -- unlike the Big 12.

Aug 15 --- the date for the ACC to fall apart in 2024 -- also passed, and still no statement. Have reporters not asked??

Just find it interesting. I agree Cal / Stanford could eventually end up in the B10 but not if they "die on the vine" in the meantime... A "strategic opportunity" may be fleeting and passing by as we speak.
I feel the same way. I really don't understand the B1G's thinking if it's their ultimate goal to add us some time in the future. It doesn't make sense for them to kneecap us the way they did and have our conference collapse around us, leave us roaming the wilderness for a few years and then expect us to be available in a salvageable state when they're ready to add us. I'm starting to think that they're truly not interested, not now and maybe not in the future.

While the B1G probably makes the most sense from Cal's perspective in this new world of realignment, I've accepted the fact that it's not happening ... certainly not anytime soon. If I'm proven wrong somehow, I will be happy for Cal. But I hope we find a home in the ACC as I'm ready to move on. ACC or bust.

If our Ohio visitor's speculation is correct, it may be that the B1G wants to add more, but the media partners are being stubborn. That would fit with the reported speculation that Fox is really making the decisions on their expansion. It remains to be seen if they can potentially work around that.

If I'm extrapolating from some of BearGreg's comments here, it seems like the B1G did have some kind of offer or at least discussed some kind of price point for Stan/Cal, but it's far lower than what they could potentially get from the ACC. That's why the focus on making a deal there.
As much as the ACC deal may be better in the short term ---- and, believe me, I'm hyped for and would love an invite to the ACC at the moment over the alternative --- that ACC life raft has a hole/leak in it. It's going to implode as soon as FSU/Clemson get to the point where the cost of penalties in leaving is outweighed by the benefit of the SEC/B1G. Therefore, if there is viable, albeit, paltry offer on the table from the B1G that beats out a G6/Pac-12 rebuild (our BATNA), we should take it.
Or maybe ND joins the ACC as a full member, every school gets $40 million in a new TV deal and it doesn't implode? Maybe down the road SC/UCLA/WA/OR seek a better fit and flip to the ACC? When the last time the states of Ohio and Michigan led on something of national importance? Long term the ACC schools are far better positioned for academic and economic growth than the B1G, IMO. They just have to keep the league together during this media fueled conference raiding season.
Reply Quote
3
calumnus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sosheezy • 5:01a, 8/23/23
sosheezy said:
sycasey said:
Shocky1 said:
big 10 offer never happened
If you say so. I'm just speculating based on BearGreg's comment here.
Quote:
The B10 is no longer involved. Almost certainly the gap in $$'s is too great.
This indicates that, at least at some point, a dollar value was discussed with the Big Ten. Perhaps Greg is wrong?


There's a difference between Fox communicating a potential value assigned for Cal/Stanford vs the Big Ten offering that value and most importantly, membership.


It is far more plausible that the B1G presidents want Cal and Stanford to fill out the West Coast pod but we deemed the offer they relayed from from Fox to be too low than believe Fox made an offer but the B1G presidents wouldn't offer it to us because they don't want us.
Reply Quote
Anon378
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:26a, 8/23/23
Serious ?: if the ACC does expand to a western wing, does the name of the conference change? Lol
Reply Quote
CALiforniALUM
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sosheezy • 5:54a, 8/23/23
sosheezy said:
JimSox said:
bledblue said:
BearGreg said:
sycasey said:
I'm also curious if the Big Ten have had any talks/interest in picking up Cal or Stanford? Or are they completely out of the picture at this point?
The B10 is no longer involved. Almost certainly the gap in $$'s is too great.

At this point, why not just take the low offer from the BIG?
Because there isn't one?

Exactly and also if the numbers discussed are Fox paying only $10-15M/year, when your conference peers are getting $62.5/yr and $30-35M (UW/OR), you are set up to fail hard and never be competitive. Taking 16-25% at best revenue relative to peers? Not when the ACC discussions are real and let's say for 50-70% of what the rest of the league gets.


Math ain't my strong suit , but if you add UCLA's $60m to our $15m and split it down the middle by way of Calimony then UCLA, Cal, Oregon, and Washington would all get about the same payout. Since UCLA wouldn't agree to that directly I think Christ would have back channel the adjustment through the Regents. As in Cal accepting anything to get in and once in having the UC system level it out separately.
Reply Quote
2
UrsineMaximus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:26a, 8/23/23
Why is the prevalent assumption on this board that should the B!G expand further that it is Cal & 'furd as their 1st choice? It could be that the B!G is holding out until FSU & Clemson are free of their GoR, no?
Reply Quote
3
sosheezy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to UrsineMaximus • 6:46a, 8/23/23
UrsineMaximus said:
Why is the prevalent assumption on this board that should the B!G expand further that it is Cal & 'furd as their 1st choice? It could be that the B!G is holding out until FSU & Clemson are free of their GoR, no?

I agree, I think if Cal ever gets in it's as the 24th team, after 4 current ACC teams and Stanford. Based on what Fox values and IF the Big Ten wants to expand that much.
Reply Quote
baytobreakers
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to UrsineMaximus • 7:00a, 8/23/23
UrsineMaximus said:
Why is the prevalent assumption on this board that should the B!G expand further that it is Cal & 'furd as their 1st choice? It could be that the B!G is holding out until FSU & Clemson are free of their GoR, no?


Because Cal and Stanford are orphaned without a home at the moment While FSU is locked into a 13 year Grant of Rights.
Reply Quote
2
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to baytobreakers • 7:10a, 8/23/23
baytobreakers said:
UrsineMaximus said:
Why is the prevalent assumption on this board that should the B!G expand further that it is Cal & 'furd as their 1st choice? It could be that the B!G is holding out until FSU & Clemson are free of their GoR, no?


Because Cal and Stanford are orphaned without a home at the moment While FSU is locked into a 13 year Grant of Rights.

Also it's assumed FSU and Clemson really want in to the SEC.

If the whole thing blows up then I wouldn't assume Cal/Stanford are the FIRST choice. But if the B1G wants more teams to fill out a western pod then they would be it.
Reply Quote
3
PappyGrrl365
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearSD • 7:46a, 8/23/23
And while we're stuck at home, we keep seeing Dorrance live tweeting the festivities and we're like they invited Dorrance?

The rejection vibe is very real here.

We just need to find one senior boy with a car, even if he's still got braces.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
nikeykid
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:02a, 8/23/23


IS TODAY THE DAY?
Reply Quote
1
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nikeykid • 9:14a, 8/23/23
nikeykid said:


IS TODAY THE DAY?
May as well go right to the source on this one.

Reply Quote
1
phyrux
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 9:15a, 8/23/23
sycasey said:
baytobreakers said:
UrsineMaximus said:
Why is the prevalent assumption on this board that should the B!G expand further that it is Cal & 'furd as their 1st choice? It could be that the B!G is holding out until FSU & Clemson are free of their GoR, no?


Because Cal and Stanford are orphaned without a home at the moment While FSU is locked into a 13 year Grant of Rights.

Also it's assumed FSU and Clemson really want in to the SEC.

If the whole thing blows up then I wouldn't assume Cal/Stanford are the FIRST choice. But if the B1G wants more teams to fill out a western pod then they would be it.
SEC already has South Carolina and Florida. I'm skeptical they have a huge desire to add FSU and Clemson. Especially given ESPN's involvement with the ACC. NC and the Virginia schools would make more sense.
Reply Quote
1
HateRed
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:21a, 8/23/23
I bet nothing happens today. Jason Cole, I hope you're right.
Reply Quote
1
bipolarbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearSD • 9:22a, 8/23/23
BearSD said:
bipolarbear said:
Piratefan2102 said:
Here's my thinking… would the acc really lead Stanford and cal on like this if they were not gonna be able to reach an agreement? I would say no but who the heck knows! Some deadlines are approaching..
I am beginning to feel jerked around.
It's like we're trying to get an invitation to a party, and we've asked everyone who is going that we know, and maybe the host will eventually invite us, or maybe it's just that no one wants to be the one who tells us no.
it's like some sweaty high school scenario.
Reply Quote
berserkeley
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to phyrux • 9:34a, 8/23/23
phyrux said:
sycasey said:
baytobreakers said:
UrsineMaximus said:
Why is the prevalent assumption on this board that should the B!G expand further that it is Cal & 'furd as their 1st choice? It could be that the B!G is holding out until FSU & Clemson are free of their GoR, no?


Because Cal and Stanford are orphaned without a home at the moment While FSU is locked into a 13 year Grant of Rights.

Also it's assumed FSU and Clemson really want in to the SEC.

If the whole thing blows up then I wouldn't assume Cal/Stanford are the FIRST choice. But if the B1G wants more teams to fill out a western pod then they would be it.
SEC already has South Carolina and Florida. I'm skeptical they have a huge desire to add FSU and Clemson. Especially given ESPN's involvement with the ACC. NC and the Virginia schools would make more sense.


The SEC has 2 primary reasons to grab FSU and Clemson.

1) To keep the B1G out of SEC territory. The last thing the SEC wants is to share the Southeast with the B1G while the B1G has total control of almost everywhere else outside of Texas and the Deep South.

2) The only teams not in the SEC to win a football title in the last decade: FSU and Clemson.
Reply Quote
2
Anon378
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:35a, 8/23/23
Lol UNC HC Dorrance issued a statement today… " I want to clarify my recent remarks regarding ACC expansion. I have the utmost respect for Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley. They are outstanding institutions with dedicated leaders, committed students and world-class soccer programs and coaches. I don't think conference expansion is in the best interest of Carolina and the ACC at this time, and I trust and respect the decisions that Kevin Guskiewicz, Bubba Cunningham and ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips are making on behalf of Carolina and the ACC."
Reply Quote
MrGPAC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:38a, 8/23/23
I think the belief (hope?) Is that the B1G wants 4 6 team pods to form a 24 team conference. To do that they need 4 more east coast schools and 2 more west coast schools, and the east coast schools won't happen until the ACC GoR is broken.

The B1G has been very strategic with their timing in all of this. They got USC/UCLA the last day before they would have had an exit fee to leave the pac.

They got Washington and Oregon hours before they were looking to sign on with the Pac and Apple, effectively killing the Pac (and blocking apple).

They did both of these moves at the last possible moment to achieve whatever their vision is. At this point, they don't have much rush to get Cal or Stanford. If anything, Cal and Stanford going to the ACC is a dream scenario for them. Their next step is largely stuck behind the ACC GoR and stashing Cal and Stanford there until that can be broken makes sure that they are still worth getting whenever that happens. If Cal and Stanford really do end up on the doorstep of the MWC as their last and only option the B1G would be forced to consider if they would still be worth it whenever the ACC GoR breaks.

Cal and Stanford going to the Big12 is probably the worst case scenario if the B1G really does have plans of adding Cal and Stanford down the line. That made threatening to go there very valuable for Oregon and Washington...for whatever that's worth
Reply Quote
4
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.